Robert Brown, of the John Birch Society
Robert Brown warns open convention could destroy Constitution, calls for states to interpose against federal tyranny.
Below, I have summed up the Robert Brown’s speech on April 13, 2024 in Springfield, MO. It’s not a word-for-word of his speech, but an approximation of his ideas and concepts. I do attempt to use his words as much as possible. There are times where I use my own words to summarize him. In that case, that will mean a degradation of his speech as I can only offer an inferior mortar to his bedrock knowledge.
Robert Brown was invited to speak by the Christian County Missouri Republican Assembly and the Christian County Republican Central Committee at the Ozark Empire Fairgrounds.
He spoke about his Convention of the States, Con-Con.
John Birch Society has a Journal here, titled The New American.
The Constitution is a Safeguard Against Marxist Presidents
Robert Brown of the John Birch Society gave a speech on April 13th. He began by asking, "Why has the United States Not Fallen?" He then explained how Russia, China, and Cuba all became Communist - through the rise of a dedicated Marxist to power.
Brown then questioned, "Why haven't we completely fallen to Marxism?" He attributed this to "The Structure of the Constitution" and its "Divisions of Power" between the federal, state, and local governments.
Brown warned that in order to turn the United States into a Marxist state, "they need a STRUCTURAL change to the Constitution." He questioned, "Is it any surprise that some well-funded groups are pushing for Structural changes to the Constitution?"
Brown posed questions to the audience.
Would they support a constitutional convention if it was "being promoted as a completely open convention?
Where the delegates have 'any and all authority' to make any changes they feel necessary?
Would they support it if "The convention would have the power to write its own rules its ratification?"
He encouraged the audience to take "The $10,000 challenge at www.jbs.org/concon/ in 'The Harsh Reality of a Convention of States'" to learn more.
The Founders' Call to Interposition
The founders were clear in their call for state governments to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. As Daniel Webster stated, "The solemn duty of the state governments to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the state governments exist..."
This principle of interposition is found in the Declaration of Independence, where the signers declared "And for support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives."
The "Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates" provides a historical precedent, such as when in 39 AD, Roman Emperor Caligula ordered an idol be placed in the Jewish temple at Jerusalem. Publius Petronius, a Roman governor, refused Caligula's order, declaring "Should I prize my life so highly not to sacrifice it for the righteousness of your cause?"
Interposition also includes the concept of nullification - not as sedition, rebellion, or secession, but as "enforcing Constitutional laws" and "not enforcing, but resisting, laws which have no constitutional authority" in order to "uphold the Constitution."
The Founders' Planned for us to Defend the Constitution from Tyrants
The Founders left us with clear guidance on how to defend the Constitution against usurpation. This wisdom is found in the "Letters to the Newspapers of New York" written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson - the authors of the Federalist Papers.
These writings provided the "Official Explanation of the Constitution" and are considered the "Authoritative Writings on the Constitution."
According to the Founding Fathers, the "Solutions According to the Founding Fathers" include:
James Madison's belief that this is the "Ultimate Redress" against unconstitutional actions.
The recognition that "The Means of Opposition to it are powerful and at hand."
Empowering "The People who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."
Harnessing "the disquietude of the people" against such usurpation.
Ensuring that "Usurpation would require the concurrence of the courts of justice and the body of the people."
As Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority…as the natural guardians of the Constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale and give it a decided preponderance in the contest."
The Power of Nullification in the Hands of Good Men and Women
The Founders were clear that the states, supported by the people, would be able to "easily defeat" any "schemes of usurpation" by the federal government. As James Madison wrote, "The State Governments, with the people on their said, would be able to repel the danger."
This principle is further articulated by Alexander Hamilton, who noted that "if the [cooperation] of the state legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union they have only NOT TO ACT, or to ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated."
The Founders recognized the states' right to nullify "federal laws which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of residuary powers." This is exemplified in the response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which Jefferson condemned in the Kentucky Resolution as a violation of the states' sovereignty.
As Madison argued, without this right of the states to interpose, "there would be an end to all relief of usurped power…as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence was…" This principle is further enshrined in Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which requires state officials to take the Oath of Office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
The Founders were clear that the state governments and their officers are "the essential agency in giving effect to the federal Constitution" and must uphold this oath to defend the Constitution against any federal tyranny.
Nullification Do’s and Don’ts
Critics often claim that nullification is "extra-constitutional," but the Founders saw it as firmly grounded in the Constitution.
There is also the myth that nullification was used to protect slavery. However, there is no instance where nullification was employed for that purpose. In fact, when the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 violated due process by incentivizing judges to rule someone a runaway slave, 13 Northern states passed laws nullifying it. For example, Michigan passed a law imposing heavy fines and prison time for anyone who "wrongfully and maliciously" seized a free person and tried to enslave them.
Some claim that James Madison opposed nullification, but this is misleading. In 1798, Madison supported nullification, writing that in cases of "deliberate, palpable, and dangerous" federal overreach, the states have the right to interpose. However, in 1834 he opposed the nullification theory espoused by John Calhoun.
[Calhoun wanted to use nullification to unilaterally cancel out federal laws that did not violate the Constitution, essentially allowing a single state to hold the entire Union hostage. In contrast, the nullification Madison espoused is meant to prevent unconstitutional laws or applications of law from being enforced.] This is the right and duty of elected officials and other officers who have taken the Oath of Office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
As Madison clarified in 1834, the right of nullification he had in mind was "the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression." He could not have supported Calhoun's version, which would allow "a single state could constitutionally resist a law of the Union while remaining within it, and that with the accession of a small minority of the others."
Conclusion
The only reason to oppose nullification is if you don't want the Constitution enforced. As Daniel Webster powerfully stated, "The solemn duty of the state governments to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the state governments exist...hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what what happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again."
If the states stood strong now in defense of the Constitution, the federal government's tyranny would be rolled back. As John Dickinson warned, if you comply with unconstitutional usurpations, "you fix, you rivet perpetual Chains upon your unhappy country."
Effective Action
To defend the Constitution, we must establish a foundation of understanding its principles and the agenda of those who seek to undermine it. This includes developing a "well regulated Militia" at the state level, as the Founders intended - a military force that could rival the world's largest armies if properly organized and trained.
Engagement in coordinated, effective action is also crucial, choosing local battles that align with one's calling. The "Power of 500 " can make a real difference when citizens unite around the Constitution.
My Opinion on Robert Brown’s Speech
Overall, the speech was informative and it was worth the price of admission to hear him speak to Nullification. I have read a book he mentioned, The Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates, by Matthew J. Trewhella. I found the book to be illuminating and to help inform some of my decisions as a journalist to stand against government overreach.
Having Brown strengthen the argument with the Federalist papers and the fact that Article VI is designed to help Elected Officials stand in Interposition for citizens was important information also. Overall, I was certain that I would need to listen to the speech multiple times to pick up all the information provided by Brown.
Of the three speeches, while each was intellectually stimulating, his was perhaps the most directed at the mind. If I had to speculate, Brown has to present this speech to groups of people with different political and religious beliefs, so his arguments must reach his audiences intellectually.
I would like to have seen more details about how Nullification has worked recently in our country and if we have had any wins against Government overreach by elected officials standing for our rights.
Also, as someone who has thought the Convention of States might be a path forward, I had not heard the arguments offered by Brown before—at least not so well articulated. It does give me pause because of my worries about how School Choice is now being used against us to threaten Home Schooling.